Except that in the real life of a lawyer, there are no right answers. There are better answers. There are answers that will win the case. There are answers that will set precedent. I'll concede that what you do on the LSAT is similar enough to law school to merit consideration as a probable indicator of law school success. Law schools use it for a reason. But my experience working in the legal field so far suggests that the two -- lsat and lawyer performance -- are completely distinct, varying not only across fields but within specific fields as well.

Okay, where I said "right" substitute "better" or "will win cases" etc. Now you have two people, A and B. A can get to the "better" "will win cases" etc. answers in one tenth...

on never mind.

*sigh* ... All I'm saying is that, currently working in a law firm and having worked in others, I just don't see it. Anybody else with similar observations?

EDIT: I just realized that was an invite to hijack the thread. Nevermind.

"The findings of this study also suggest that when speed is used as a variable on law school exams, the type of testing method, independent of knowledge and preparation, can change the ordering (i.e., relative grades) of individual test-takers. The current emphasis on time-pressured exams, therefore, may skew measures of merit in ways that have little theoretical relationship to the actual practice of law."

thnks for some great info. The fact that the LSAT is a better predictor of grades on speeded tests in very interesting. I do not think it is irrelevant, however. When you pay a lawyer $200/hour, you don't want him taking his sweet time -- you want him to be speedy.

I imagine that the practice of law is similiar to software development in many respects. There are kids who can crank out a lot of accurate and error-free code very quickly. However, many do not have an intellectual mind that is capable of grasping the larger concepts of softare architecture, large scale polymorphism, and scalability. These kids are often like the high scoring LSAT kids, you know you can count on them to do quick error-free work when given precise specifications, but anything beyond that is unknown.

In the software biz you do need these error-free worker bees. But you also need to pay a class of software developers considerably more to actually TAKE THEIR SWEET TIME and design a scalable software architecture that the quick, efficient worker bees can then implement.

I imagine in law there is a similiar intellectual breakdown with the LSAT being of limited value in guaging the architectural/structural thinking capabilities that are most sought after.

"The findings of this study also suggest that when speed is used as a variable on law school exams, the type of testing method, independent of knowledge and preparation, can change the ordering (i.e., relative grades) of individual test-takers. The current emphasis on time-pressured exams, therefore, may skew measures of merit in ways that have little theoretical relationship to the actual practice of law."

thnks for some great info. The fact that the LSAT is a better predictor of grades on speeded tests in very interesting. I do not think it is irrelevant, however. When you pay a lawyer $200/hour, you don't want him taking his sweet time -- you want him to be speedy.

I imagine that the practice of law is similiar to software development in many respects. There are kids who can crank out a lot of accurate and error-free code very quickly. However, many do not have an intellectual mind that is capable of grasping the larger concepts of softare architecture, large scale polymorphism, and scalability. These kids are often like the high scoring LSAT kids, you know you can count on them to do quick error-free work when given precise specifications, but anything beyond that is unknown.

In the software biz you do need these error-free worker bees. But you also need to pay a class of software developers considerably more to actually TAKE THEIR SWEET TIME and design a scalable software architecture that the quick, efficient worker bees can then implement.

I imagine in law there is a similiar intellectual breakdown with the LSAT being of limited value in guaging the architectural/structural thinking capabilities that are most sought after.

This is an elaborate rationalization for your low LSAT score. Next time you hire a guy with a 135 LSAT as your attorney, let me know.

so..how often do potential clients ask their attorneys what their LSAT scores were?

Dano

I imagine that the practice of law is similiar to software development in many respects. There are kids who can crank out a lot of accurate and error-free code very quickly. However, many do not have an intellectual mind that is capable of grasping the larger concepts of softare architecture, large scale polymorphism, and scalability. These kids are often like the high scoring LSAT kids, you know you can count on them to do quick error-free work when given precise specifications, but anything beyond that is unknown.

In the software biz you do need these error-free worker bees. But you also need to pay a class of software developers considerably more to actually TAKE THEIR SWEET TIME and design a scalable software architecture that the quick, efficient worker bees can then implement.

I imagine in law there is a similiar intellectual breakdown with the LSAT being of limited value in guaging the architectural/structural thinking capabilities that are most sought after.

These are distinctly different jobs. One is called a software engineer or software architect (and I mean a REAL engineer here not just a job title) and the other is called a software developer. In law this is equivalent to the partner versus the associate. Furthermore, in order to become a software architect, you probably had to be a speedy and precise software developer. You have to pay your dues before the high-level stuff lands in your lap.

BigTex

personally, i don't care *WHAT* my attorney's LSAT score was, i care about his class rank. If he's in the top quarter of his class from a top 10 LS - 'nuff said.

I think people who keep hanging desperately onto the past glory of their LSAT score are betraying a deep seated fear about failure in law school, an inability to ever again shine as brightly as that brief moment of glory on the LSAT.

It's all about how well you actually do in LS that counts, so personally - i'll be prudent and save the smack-talk until after I see my 1L grades. i'd suggest the same for anyone.

personally, i don't care *WHAT* my attorney's LSAT score was, i care about his class rank. If he's in the top quarter of his class from a top 10 LS - 'nuff said.

I think people who keep hanging desperately onto the past glory of their LSAT score are betraying a deep seated fear about failure in law school, an inability to ever again shine as brightly as that brief moment of glory on the LSAT.

It's all about how well you actually do in LS that counts, so personally - i'll be prudent and save the smack-talk until after I see my 1L grades. i'd suggest the same for anyone.

Don't let the words bother you.. you better believe that the professors will tell everyone to check their LSAT and UG GPA's at the door... they are no longer relevant. They'll get you into universities, however they won't keep you there.